I really hope they use a lesser known royal name. Both Frederick and Arthur are names that were used by heirs to the throne who never acceded i.e. Frederick (Duke of York) second son of George III (who would have assumed the throne before his brother William IV) and Arthur, elder brother of Henry VIII. There is already both an Arthur and Frederick in the family (Sarah Chatto's son Arthur and Prince Michael of Kent's son Frederick) but I still think it's useable, particularly for the heir to the throne.

For a girl, I would love to see Charlotte used. Again, it's the name borne by an heir to the throne (Princess Charlotte of Wales, only child of George IV). But other names that haven't been widely used could be Matilda, Eleanor and Mary.

Do you think since there is an Edward in the family, they would name if they have a son Edw?

There are two living princes of the United Kingdom named Edward. The Queen did not mind naming one of her sons Edward despite having a royal first cousin and a royal uncle named Edward. The latter was also the extremely unpopular ex-king. Is history trying to tell us that even the names we consider least likely shouldn't be discarded too soon? Who knows, perhaps Camilla's still hoping to see her name perpetuated

Its actually a relatively recent belief in the British royal family. Edward VII's youngest son was Prince John. He died at a few hours old and is buried at Sandringham. George V's youngest child, also Prince John. His life has been well documented as "The Lost Prince". He died at age 13 and is also buried at Sandringham.

__________________Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.

Edward VII's son was Alexander John though, so I don't know how much bad luck there really is about the name John afterall. However, all I can think about when hearing 'Prince John' is the lion from Disney's Robin Hood

__________________

"I am Denmark's first female Prime Minister. But you know what? I won't be the last."— Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former Prime Minister of Denmark

John has been one of the most commonly used names in the English speaking world. There's no bad luck associated with the name itself, and the man on the street couldn't tell you anything about the "Johns" of the Royal Family (er, no pun intended there) to save their lives.

I don't believe in luck, anyway. If the next "John" in the BRF has an unfortunate life, it will be through subconscious choice because everyone thinks it's bad luck.

love your accent, Mr. Lees! A Scot who can be well-understood, that shows you are well-educated. Unlike you and others, Mr. Lees, I have NO idea what gender the baby will be.
None! And I am somewhat psychic, not too much, I try to keep it down.
So many here like Charlotte. The heir who had that name died young before ascending to the throne. So she does not have a record of anything "off". It reminds me of cream puffs, and I would like a more vigorous sounding name, but Charlotte is by FAR not the worst offering.

I don't like to think of names in the sense of "bad luck" either. But like The name John, I would have to say that Richard doesn't necessarily have the best track record, either.

No, "King Richard" has not had the best luck in the BRF as all died before their time: Richard I spent only about 9 months of his reign in England and died at 41 in Germany of gangrene; Richard II came to the throne at age 10, and was deposed and probably murdered at 33; and Richard III died at 32 at Bosworth. More recently though, the current Duke of Gloucester is also "Richard" and has led a scandal-free and apparently happy life.

No, "King Richard" has not had the best luck in the BRF as all died before their time: Richard I spent only about 9 months of his reign in England and died at 41 in Germany of gangrene; Richard II came to the throne at age 10, and was deposed and probably murdered at 33; and Richard III died at 32 at Bosworth. More recently though, the current Duke of Gloucester is also "Richard" and has led a scandal-free and apparently happy life.

Someone has to break the cycle! Perhaps Richard will be a name.... Only time will tell!

Its actually a relatively recent belief in the British royal family. Edward VII's youngest son was Prince John. He died at a few hours old and is buried at Sandringham. George V's youngest child, also Prince John. His life has been well documented as "The Lost Prince". He died at age 13 and is also buried at Sandringham.

That's the other name I was trying to think of that would be good for the royal baby (if it's a boy). John is a great name, and despite the history of King John, I think this name could make a comeback.